The author
in this article is conveying that we must understand that leadership can be
both good and bad. Leaders are greater by description, is what the Americans
assume for historical and political reasons. They do not consider people such
as Nixon and Hitler as leaders because they feel both these people are
discarded and do not deserve to be labeled as leaders. Thus, it explains the
reasons and how exercise of power, authority and influence can cause harm.

 

Kellerman not only focuses on describing leadership as an art but
additionally also emphasizes on the fact that the industry only focuses on
defining leadership and leaders as good leaders and completely overlook the
assessment of bad leadership and leaders. The article finds a case for
additionally stressing on bad leadership in the definition of leadership.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

The case
talks about how Americans have been fortunate in their political leadership.
The author stress upon differentiating between leadership and the leader,
further explaining that leadership can be best understood by accentuating upon
three variables; the leader, the follower and the context of the time. The
article highlights that bad leadership can be termed as either futile or
immoral or both. In addition to that the article also explains seven different
types of bad leadership: incompetent, rigid, intemperate, callus, corrupt,
insular, and evil.

The
article also talks about the problems due to limiting leadership to good;

·        
It is
confusing

·        
It is
misleading

·        
It does
a disservice

The
author believes that bad leadership is also leadership and bad leaders are
leaders. The article correspond bad leadership to the readers by discovering
the latest scholarly and industry focus on defining bad leaders with a term as
“power wielders” and bad leadership to be unnoticed and ambiguous by the recent
trends. The article argues that people want to learn and explore more about
good leaders like John Adams and Jack Welch from the industry but disregard the
leaders like David Koresh and Warren Harding’s. This is a usual tendency which
is similar to “avoiding the elephant in the room” and people refuse to compare
good leaders’ like Franklin Delano Roosevelt to Adolph Hitler. The crux and the
most critical aspect of the article points that the definition and
understanding of leadership should not only be limited to good leadership but
bad too, as it is done in today’s’ leadership industry. The article argues over
and over again for the definition of leadership, and wants people to admit that
leadership and leaders are bad too and in order to understand the definition
and the term leadership, we must open ourselves to this complete definition of
leadership and leaders and in the end learn that leadership can be good and
bad.

The author also argues that the behavior of the leaders is defined
by their own virtues and there are followers of bad leaders because the
followers need someone to lead.

 

Q2. What are the similarities and differences between good and
bad leadership.

Leadership style of India’s 11th
president, Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam if imbibed can turn an ordinary organization
into an extra ordinary and a magnificent organization. He did not believe in
the word impossible and went about proving his belief. Leaders explode the mind
of others; just like that Dr. Kalam went on his mission like a unique satellite
that revolves around the Universe, erupting hundreds and thousands of minds and
numerous nations. He never took pride in anything and shared all his knowledge
and experience with transparency and sincerity to the entire nation.

 

Dr. Manmohan Singh is brilliant Economist;
but a bad leader in Indian context. Dr. Singh was
bestowed with position and power of a leader but was unable to perform his
assigned task successfully and was termed as an underachiever. The nation was expecting
better policies which would drive the economy on the accurate path and better
economic growth but he was unable to meet the expectations of his followers.
His reputation was at stake initially and finally diminished worldwide due to
his inability to take his own decisions. He lacked the ability to take
decisions from his end as a leader of the nation and as someone people were
looking forward to for the development of the country. His attitude of not speaking
up and disregarding several matters were of major concern of the people of the
country. He took decisions based on his party’s pressure and could not lead the
nation as expected from a prime minister. Hence, he is termed as a bad leader
in the political history of India.

 

However, there are
few similarities between a good and a bad leader. The calm and serene behavior
the two leaders Dr. Kalam and Dr. Singh possess is what they are both respected
for. Leaders are expected to accept the criticism and are inclined to share
their knowledge, wisdom, power and responsibility and both the leaders
mentioned, possessed these virtues. Leaders are humble and do not flaunt their
qualities, such was their leadership style. Their personal leadership style’s
impresses global celebrities and the people of their country admire both these
leaders to be modest and humble. In addition, both these leaders have accepted
criticism honestly. When NASA launch failed Dr. Kalam took the accountability
of the failure even though he was not responsible for the launch and its failure,
this is what leaders do.

 

Dr. Kalam encouraged thousands of people to
dream; and believe in their dreams, rather than forcing them to believe in his own dreams. He had a vision for the nation and the people he
belonged to, the people of his nation. He was always finding innovative solutions to the problems. He is
the only missile scientist in this country who encouraged and motivated the
people and which even now makes people around the world walk with confidence.
He was a confident and a courageous leader who dared to dream the impossible.
On the other hand, Dr. Manmohan Singh is thought of a very less impactful
leader, who lacked confidence and courage to take decisions on his own; He
never had a vision and a goal to achieve, for the nation and did not take
interest either. Apart from this, he was not able to entice the audience or his
followers and was never ahead to take initiatives and bring innovation for the
development of the country. He lacked a positive attitude and even though was
bestowed with powers was unable to perform his duty. He was influenced by the
decisions of others and was unable to put forth his point.